301 Mass. 25 | Mass. | 1938
An employee of one Lamb, a rigger hired as an independent contractor by H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., a milk dealer, to remove a defective transformer from its plant, received on October 22, 1936, “a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment” (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 152, § 26), while removing the transformer. Lamb was not insured under the workmen’s compensation act, but H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., was, and the injured employee seeks compensation from the insurer of the latter. The Industrial Accident Board awarded compensation, and the Superior Court entered a decree therefor. The insurer appealed.
The right to hold the insurer of H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., depends upon G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 18, which has been most recently considered in Clark v. M. W. Leahy Co. Inc. 300 Mass. 565. Under that section, the insurer came under
There was evidence of the following facts. The transformer in question was one of three used by the insured and necessary to the operation of its plant and business. Almost all the power used at the plant was electrical. The milk was cooled and pasteurized by electricity. The insured employed constantly a chief electrician and nine assistant electricians. The work of removing the defective transformer was dangerous. The electricians and other skilled employees of the insured warned Lamb’s employees of the dangers, and directed the work. The employees of Lamb furnished unskilled strength. But we assume, as the parties have assumed, that the injured employee was the employee of Lamb and not of the insured.
The present case is not one where the work was the occasional construction or alteration of a building in which the insured carried on business. Pimental v. John E. Cox Co. 299 Mass. 579. See also Pearce v. London & South Western Railway, [1900] 2 Q. B. 100; Wrigley v. Bagley & Wright, [1901] 1 K. B. 780; Bogoratt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co. 114 Conn. 126. The work in the present case more nearly resembled the constant keeping of the plant in operating condition, usually undertaken by the proprietor of the business with his own employees. People’s Ice Co. v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp. 161 Mass. 122, 124. Burt v. Munising Woodenware Co. 222 Mich. 699. Compare Corbett’s Case, 270 Mass. 162; Fontaine’s Case, 274 Mass. 75, 77; Hayes v. S. J. Thompson & Co. 6 B. W. C. C. 130. The latter work has been held “in the usual course
The decree is to be modified by correcting the erroneous statement that the employee was employed by the insured instead of by Lamb, and as so modified it is
Affirmed.